This is really simple, you say on your website, here’s how the discourse on this platform is going to work, no name calling (then outline what is name calling in detail, even list examples of name calling). Then lay out videos, and what’s acceptable and what isn’t in detail (again) since it seems each and every expected behavior is outlined like you’re dealing with a bunch of 10 year olds. Once those expectations are out there, each registrant signs it, and at the first breach of the outlined discourse, their plug get pulled and no refunds.
If those who want to spew hate, they can stick to their own slimy web site, and talk amongst themselves, the topic could be, ignorance, is it inherited or is it learned.
1
Kudos to Germany!
Rights should be balanced with responsibility and one without the other leads to problems. Pigs will likely fly before all human beings can balance both and behave accordingly and this is what often leads to more regulation. Governments also have a duty to promote a safe society for as many citizens as possible as well as individual rights and try to balance the two. There will always be "challenged" people in any country (like the man who fired shots into the pizza parlor where Hillary Clinton was allegedly running her pedophile ring) and governments have I think, some duty to moderate harm from them. It has always been a pity that the bad behavior of some has spoiled things for the more responsible but it has lead to more regulation in many other fields of life. It will also likely stay the same way until we all - if ever - evolve emotionally as well as technologically beyond cave men.
Free speech should not be a license to promote lies, venom and malice and I can't see how some of these individuals who spew hate speech are personally harmed by restrictions on it, however much they bleat on about their free speech and their own right to harm others with it.
There are limits to the First Amendment in the US as well with an outline of them here:
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-limits-legal-limits-of-the-First-Amen...
4
'Others are less so. On Dec. 31, the day before the new law took effect, a far-right lawmaker reacted to an Arabic New Year’s tweet from the Cologne police, accusing them of appeasing “barbaric, Muslim, gang-raping groups of men.”'
Calling elected politicians 'far right' in western democracies tells us little or nothing about their political grouping, political bar or political support, but much about the bias of the name caller. It's akin to those on the right referring to every progressive as a 'libtard'. It's an ad hominem attack that unlike the many witty personal attacks on the 45th made by the most popular green ticked commenters on the NYT lacks the saving grace of being clever, informative or mirth-invoking.
The European labour left has a long and fine tradition of opposition to unskilled immigration because unskilled immigrants compete for jobs with endogenous workers and drive down wages.
Business owners, who the world over tend to be conservative and support the right, the far right, and the ultra right, have a vested interest in supporting unskilled immigration because it drives down wages and reduces their labour costs.
2
"unskilled immigrants compete for jobs with endogenous workers"
("endogenous (adj.) derived or originating internally")
Sounds very scholarly, but
what are you trying to say?
1
To your way of thinking, it’s unskilled labor that’s pushing down wages, you couldn’t be farther from the truth if you were on a whole separate continent. If you’ve been paying any attention, a plutocracy is a government by big business for big business, labor is just a drain on their bottom line. There are two ways that corporations can force wages down. They do it, by insourcing labor, or for unskilled labor, they outsource it. Insourcing labor, is where a company imports labor, say high tech labor, using say, the H1-B visa as well as other visas, Trumps family uses those to import labor to work on at their wineries. Outsourcing that speaks for itself since we’ve all had to call customer support.
Republican Party for decades has been passing laws that essentially strip the unions ability to add members, or pass right to work laws. Take Boeing, they get billions in tax breaks in the state of Washington, part of that agreement was that in return Boeing would keep 70,000 people employed in the Seattle region. Boeing has consistently laid people off in Seattle to move the work to a “right to work” state. Boeing employees there, get paid a maximum of 22.00 while the Boeing employees in Seattle get far, far more, thanks to organized labor.
Tyson is building a meat packing plant in a right to work state, while closing down their plant in Iowa employees there will be paid substantially less. And let’s face it who wants to cut the bung holes from dead pigs, for 12.00 and hour.
2
Basically he’s a European that likes to blame everyone else, for the issues directly caused by government not a people.
The only answer is to shut down Facebook, period. That is the only impartial way to deal with a mob gone out of control.
By controlling free speech on Facebook, the German government, ANY government, now has used a flimsy excuse to secure for itself an extremely powerful tool to change the narrative into the direction the government wants to see it. It doesn't even have to become active to post its own propaganda. All that is required is that it blocks those parts of the story it does not want to be known. Its own approved propaganda will naturally take over!
I am dumbstruck that it is Germany of all places that is taking that step! 'Gleichschaltung', i.e. control of the media, was the key to Hitler's power grab. That Angela Merkel is using the same tactics, with only slightly different method of execution under the guise of combating 'hate-speech' is shocking to me, to say the least.
At a minimum, it is an overt sign that she has come to realize that her politics are out of touch with such a large number of her citizens that she now has control what can and what cannot be published. That seems to be the key for her fragile hold to power now! Trump only wishes that he could do that, Angela Merkel can and does.
I am not sure who is the greater danger to democracy these days: Trump or Merkel.
2
This article is an example of just how messy this whole situation is. Shut down FB? No. Shut down all social media? No. Shut down the Internet? No. Censor free speech? No. Let all content remain? No. What then? When you have a messy situation where no one will ever be happy with decisions, you absolutely must err on the side of keeping people safe. That’s the only reason this is even a problem: people are not protected while others are free to violate. That’s just not right. We must do what we can to protect people and if you don’t like it, sorry. You are in the wrong and you know it.
10
Whose people should be protected?
Your people or my people?
5
If your people are the murdered, raped, emotionally denigrated, etc., then your people. But, why separate us? Those who can must gather together and help anyone in need. Anyone and everyone. Although I am not black, I fight for black and minority rights; although I am not young, I fight for the rights of young people; although I have not been violated by a man in power, I fight for those who have. Why? Because that's the right thing to do and I am able. Lets not Be Best, let's do what is right.
2
Governments have used color, or religion to keep the people separate, as a means of saying see, there are more of us than of you.
Facebook would make Goebbels drool. If only Josef had access to such a network. The ability to reach a worldwide audience reaching into the billions, spreading lies, fake news, propaganda and inciting hate mongering.
And, oh yeah, just as bad, let's not Facebook's excuse for their existence: creating a global village, making us all a bit more tolerant in accepting diversity. Horseradish. If you believe that tripe spewing forth from Zuckerberg's pie hole, you'll buy anything. Facebook is just not worth the bother, especially the proliferation of those nauseatingly cute photos of the grand kids and their equally adorable pets. Today we come for the grandparents, tomorrow the World.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
5
WE HAVE MUCH TO LEARN From the Germans, who, during WW II, suffered the consequences of hate speech. For that reason, it is illegal. We in the US would do well to learn from and follow the German example. Because the hate speech generate by our polarized politics is toxic and is poisoning our political discourse. I favor the punch-in-the-nose test. Your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins.
8
Be careful what you wish for before you give up on the First Amendment. Only because it exists are you allowed to write your comment.
As for punches: It depends on how you define 'punch' and whether you are the one who is throwing it or the one looking at the approaching fist. For me, attacking the First Amendment, i.e. my nose, is a vicious punch.
IMO the only way to deal with a situation that is increasingly spiraling out of control is to remove the cause for the disruption, i.e. Facebook. There is nothing lost, believe me. I have never signed up for it, and the more I read about how obnoxious it has turned out to be, the more I am convinced that I must have suffered a stroke of ingenious foresight when I rejected it from the start.
And pretty soon what you have is societal breakdown, like the Germans of WWII. Not every single German of the day supported Hitler, but when you turn one against the other it becomes a matter of living to tell the tale. To not end up in a concentration camp, or being hung by piano wire, you and your whole family. For every German officer that attempted to assassinate Hitler, it wasn’t for their personal benefit, it was because the saw wrong and tried to right it, and every one of them paid with their lives. And even right up to the end Anne Frank, saw the good in everyone.
For Anti Hate no new law at all would have been neccessary.
Its more a revival from history for censoring.
There are coming billions of informations every day. Nobody can decide if true or fake . Only the mediagiant Bertelsmann can ?
This law is an authorization to supress the parliamentary Opposition. "News" from the Parties in Gouvernement are "trusted" . The truth can be deleted only on media not really. Our grandfathers knew from this live.
Fortunately there are more players on the stage and social medias in german Version abroad so that the Government only is to lose Control completely about the postings of their own People.
Russia Today on the magazin side has already closed this gap with a high truth quote. Papers in Switzerland and Austria also are profiting. Even the New York Times.
The german People are rid of being patronized .
A female Street Artist positioned a common bikinitop on a traffic sign.
Made a photo. Deleted.
Can`t it be this article of C.F. Schütze has been made smoothed for the New York Times ?
1
It was not the Nazi's ability to spread hatred of Jews through the then-available media. It was their capture, by election and other illegitimate means, the reins of government. Thus, Hitler and cohorts gained the means of legitimized force and violence, the so-called police powers of the state. With that they were able to "regulate" and otherwise exercise violent control over those who dared to oppose them politically. The Nazi's also captured the sometimes reluctant approval of most ordinary Germans by means of the proverbial carrot and stick. The carrot was a John Maynard Keynes inspired program of massive government spending on social-welfare and military buildup during the Great Depression, which served to alleviate Germany's extensive unemployment. The stick was seeing what happened to their fellow citizens who were out of favor with the Nazi regime.
Governments are much more dangerous than Facebook. To paraphrase Stalin, "How many (military) divisions does Mark Zuckerberg have?"
The frightening aspect is "who defines what is acceptable". It probably is what conforms to current German political correctness and government-mandated political ideology. I am afraid that conservative, anti-migrant, non-pro Muslim,pro-Trump viewpoints will be suppressed - in fact, I am confident that they will be. This, after all, is Germany.
1
The fruit baskets in the photo are sitting on computers. That's a bad idea, because the computers could overheat.
Workers should be encouraged to walk occasionally, so the baskets should be placed on a table along the wall.
Facebook should require that Arvato hire an industrial engineer to look for other mistakes in the office design.
Hate speech is certainly bad, but I'm even more concerned about centralized government control of speech. I'm glad I don't use public social media.
1
We need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and update it for all media, including internet media, here in the USA.
3
A deletion center full of people who have to sign a Non-Disclosure agreement. Does that sound like a free society?
2
Nope, it's a Stasi control center.
After all, Angela Merkel grew up in East Germany, she knows how to set one up.
2
Facebook's business model is maturing, and the company's leadership must do likewise. Mr. Zuckerberg should step aside or remain as a figurehead to allow professional managers to oversee a business that is encountering more complex and sophisticated issues on the world stage. He has made his fortune on a brilliant idea, but now developments are taking shape and evolving that are far beyond his expertise or his ability to manage in an exceedingly diverse world. Germany is to be applauded for tackling such knotty issues particularly in light of its history.
4
Facebook seems to be a magnet for people who think nothing of insulting others when they disagree with them. I have reported many people who have insulted me for my liberal viewpoint, only to be told that this is okay under community standards. I am eager to see if the new EU rules will change that. There is no good reason to be disagreeable when people disagree.
5
Community? I do not want to be a part of that community. And I am not.
2
"... I have reported many people who have insulted me for my liberal viewpoint ..."
How do those people know you have a "liberal viewpoint"? And what are some examples of the "insults"?
1
They resort to spewing hate, for a couple of reasons, one is the writer is sitting somewhere safe in the knowledge that you won’t come knocking on their door and ask them to repeat to your face, what they were so willing to write. It’s called being passive aggressive, like when someone flips you the bird in the comfort and relative safety of their car, because they are usually speeding away. They’re willing to confront you but only to a point.
And, they can’t reason, you can’t have a sound sense of reason when you ignore facts. A person can only have a debate if they are armed with factual data, absent verifiable fact based data, all they have left is yelling, or trying the old, I’ll just berate her trick. It’s like when two people argue, they are yelling not because one or the other is deaf, it’s about control, and if they can shout you down, then they feel that their point was heard. You just have to consider the source, and realize that when Trump said he liked uneducated people, now you know why. Just tell them you’re about to market your new bright red GOP nose ring with a handy Trump-leash and silent dog whistle, it makes it easier to lead them around.
For a very long time I have pondered the "free speech vs. lies/propaganda/hate speech", particularly when it comes from the air waves in the form of Alex Jones, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. Where do we draw the line?
2
I draw the line, personally, at intelligent speech. I prefer intelligent speech. Coulter Limbaugh Trump Pence Bannon Fox News are poorly educated people. Higher Education Campuses should allow intelligent speech, not free speech that can be School Dunce speech. Students are there to become intelligent.
2
KSF: I agree with you, but now you enter another qualifier: What is intelligent? For instance, there was a considerable uproar a while back at a college where the author of 'The Bell Curve' was scheduled to speak and in fact was prevented from doing so by the students in what from all I have read was a liberal-fanatic knee jerk reaction. In fact, I would find a discussion of this topic, its partial validity and its obvious flaws of some forms of interpretation, extremely stimulating and challenging to intelligent reasoning.
For instance, I am perfectly aware of and comfortable with the fact that I am residing at different positions on many different bell curves. I was always the second slowest student in my class in the 100 m dash, so I was at the extreme end of that curve. On the other hand, I was in the top 20% on cross country runs, putting me in a favorable position on that curve. The same applies to job skills, or other measures. Einstein was clearly at the extreme end of his curve when it came to theoretical physics, average as a violinist, but probably hopeless in other arenas.
We have to admit to ourselves that there is no single ONE bell curve, but many. And we all should continuously strive to improve our standing on the respective curves we are on that are most important to us or those around us and also learn to accept our weaknesses.
Shutting down that discussion prevented the audience from arriving e.g. at that conclusion.
1
Kara, you may not be aware, but there is formal Standardized Testing throughout Higher Education. The Top Score is Brilliant IQ. There are 52 Grades in the School System. There are certain requirements to promote to the next grade. The USA is not as familiar with this formal traditional School Structure, as Europe. There are plans to introduce the USA population to this hierarchical structure, so people are aware of their Resume position. It is important that USA people generally understand what it takes to get to the Top Level of the Business World. Hopefully, this will encourage them to go further in School. Your reply suggests that people can create their own standards, and still make it to the Top Level of Higher Education as well as The Business World. There is one standard. And, the Student must meet those requirements. ---- Approved activities on campus, should be on that Brilliant IQ Track.
This article is written in a convoluted way that conflates German legislation with the actions of a private deletion center (that existed BEFORE such legislation) and sprinkles in some horror-stories for entertainment. This is confusing and irresponsible reporting.
3
We strive to teach children to be civil and considerate of others. We require people to use seat belts and stand in line for tickets. We expect them not to sneeze in a next guy's face. We have widely banned cigarette smoke im public places. We certainly do not allow lynching.
Why is it so difficult for so many to accept that hateful speech is either an aggression unmitigated by reason or social restraint, or is used as a powerful manipulative tool? If you abuse your neighbor about his parking, you are just beiing rude. If you abuse a whole community or social group on FB, you basically start an emotional war. Countless times we have seen over and over again such mass word violence transform to mass physical violence. FB makes money off our destructive instincts. Of course these instincts need to be censored and regulated on FB, just like EVERYWHERE else, if we don't want the society to unravel.
8
Because "Hate Speech" is a subjected term that can be used to stifle discussion and debate. People in power can use the term Hate Speech to shut down those who question the system that benefits them and keeps them in power.
There was violence LOOOONNNGGGGG before the concept of free speech became commonly practiced and protected, and there always will be.
Once Upon a Time a Liberal was someone who would say "the solution for bad speech is more speech."
4
Emrysz is right. People post things they would never say or do face-to-face. It's as if people think they are more anonymous to be outrageous in a way that society would smack down if they were physically standing right there. And this started with group emails back in the early 1990s. We were all shocked and outraged with what people would say then and it's only gotten more horrific. It's one thing to say something about a government, which should be protected. It's a completely different thing to say and do things to other groups or individuals.
Except when bad speech turns to physical violence. What then? More violence? More speech? Once you’ve died, you can’t go back. You and I are allowing people to be killed and maimed just so we can watch mutilation and murderous videos online? No...violence is the point here. If something leads to violence it’s wrong and must be dealt with. We MUST draw a line and then move the line if need be. We all understand that governments can be bad players, but that is NOT what we are talking about here. That’s a clever deflection but let’s be cleverer and stop the hate and violence of non-governmental players. That’s our duty as a society—a world society. (And anyway, let’s remember that we must use our vote to keep bad individuals out of our government so they don’t take over and in turn make the government bad.)
"Since then, things have calmed down. And even Mr. Allan conceded: “The law has not materially changed the amount of content that is deleted.”"
At least some of the pathological content is deleted.
A “deletion” center. What a delightfully innocuous name for a place of capricious censorship.
6
Censorship? No. Facebook is a private company, they can delete anything they want. If someone sets a forum for, let's say, young Christian moms and says "no swear words" and then someone violates that rule, the moderator will remove such post and possibly ban the offending member. What's wrong with that?
It's up to Facebook to decide what's acceptable on their pages and what isn't.
5
'A “deletion” center. What a delightfully innocuous name for a place of capricious censorship.'
"Deletion center" is a fairly literal translation of the German noun "Löschzentrum". A looser translation would be "clearing house".
Capricious? The stuff described in this article, are very serious crimes. I hope these criminals were deleted from the mainstream population.
This is simple. Zuckerberg belongs in jail. Facebook users should deactivate their accounts. Problem solved.
5
I do not think Zuckerberg has committed a criminal offense that deserves prison.
He is doing the same thing as most marketers and business people do in free economies.
It is our choice to partake or not partake in a industry designed and maintained to create a dossier on you for anything that can be sold, bought or used to further financial gain.
We as the targets seem to forget the actual goal of the current internet when our words represent us as a product for more product.
It is also free speech for those that really have nothing to say or anyone that will stand still and listen.
It NEVER works to censor speech. Misuse of this freedom will simply sit there indicting the poster while the REAL solution - more speeh - flourishes.
I'd tell the Germans to let it ALL stay available to be read. Those whose minds cannot handle such diverse opinions need to kow that they are not prepared for adult life yet and the rest of us will read whatever we want and move on.
The small-minded power grabbers are the ones you have to be worried about. Universities where speech is in any way controlled are already useless and dead, and are simply waiting to collapse due to their dead weight.
''Many people die at twenty five and aren’t buried until they are seventy five.'' – Benjamin Franklin
4
So you think the video of someone cutting out the heart of a living person is protected "speech"?! I'm hoping that not only are such heinous posts deleted but these crazy people are reported to police and imprisoned. These are not protected speech. These are flaunting crimes. What is it that conservatives say about breaking the law?
2
So not wanting to see a child being sexually abused or an animal being tortured equals not being prepared for adult life? Seriously?
4
We have the ability to choose.
That includes not viewing the fruits of such wholly evil people.
BUT the pathway from banning monstrosities ALWAYS continues until you are removing jokes and demanding overseers.
The first overseer is likely to be cute & cool, but one of the next few is always a Stalin or Goebbels. By then, you are property, nothing else.
The warning sign could be corrected as, "Everybody who is not in possession of his/her biometric ID card has no permission to enter".
Facebook should ban the accounts of these people who preach hatred, racism, etc., including friends of friends as well.
Now is this policing to take privacy away? Social network turned advertising, source of information, everyone sees everything from everyone. That reason I closed my page.
1
I am so happy that Germany is taking this stance.
The libertarian air being breathed by those who run Facebook in California is deeply naive and dangerous.
At best Facebook has proven itself deeply cynical by its reluctance to police its platform while hiding behind “freedom of speech” rhetoric.
26
Who do you choose to become your gateway to all information - which is where you are headed. Who chooses these overseers? You? Me?
Because they will be the masters of all of us in time.
Censorship bad.
Selling of people's data when those customers don't fully understanding the extent to which strangers have access to their most intimate conversations? Also bad.
Why do the citizens of the E.U. get better privacy protections?
2
If we “followed the lead” of the “advanced” European nations as many commenters advocate for, I wonder how these same people might feel if that actually were to happen and the über evil boogeyman Trump administration were in charge of what could be said online?
Still like that?
1
They're not talking about speech against governments. They're talking about horrific posts that boast about criminal deeds, like cutting the heart of a living person. Or I guess you think that should be protected instead of investigated and the poster jailed for murder.
There has never been free speech.
There has been and will always be repercussions by word or deed to anything that another person expresses as the better belief or way.
Education and a higher level of rules for voluntary social order are the only thing that can hold the line against real and imaginary hate and evil.
The Germans have a right to maintain the order of their society. Give credit for them taking action.
The US still wants their citizens to believe that everyone is equal and the law is blind and those farces are now below the belief in fairy tales.
Stupidity and ignorance breeds more stupidity and ignorance but that is too simple until it rears its head and the venom stings.
Now there are platforms disguised and propped as equal social and artistic expression for all that are wrapped in commercial rewards for a few. These stages have just spread the diseases among those looking for any type inspiration and motivation.
Good and evil are very close with very many.
I don't think people understand how the Internet works. Facebook is a weed. Sure. One can pull them out, use chemicals, bury under concrete, etc. But those weeds will always return. These people (and by these people I mean people that "believe" the Internet is the new God that connects everything like Zucks believes) are essentially mentally ill. They will continue to pop-up. But the rest of the population enjoys their "fixes". Shut down Facebook. But another weed will grow in its place. The only way to remove all the weeds is to starve them absolutely. That means no more Internet.
1
Anybody is a "potential spy" - badges do not make the person. And the Internet is apparently the new target - what a perfect choice of names..."the web"...
1
This is typical of Germany to control the speech of its citizens. The government might use any foggy formulations, but the end is always the same – functionaries in charge obtains more and more power over the people.
1
At my age, one has witnessed over the years many attempts by dubious groups to warp the minds of young people for commercial, ideological or even murderous-political goals. I should like to caution the young generation and make them aware of the dangers inherent in the use of the so called "social media". You waste your time, potentially hurt other people, and play the game of the system's financial mega-beneficiaries. By comparison, these media enterprises dwarf the attempts by the top criminals of the 20th century and render them look like the work of dilettantes. Because the, in modern terms, very modest means and intellects of previous manipulators would be no match for today's opinion regulators. Think twice, before you continue to help fill the coffers of the multi-billionaires!
3
The use of social media should be restricted to those 18 and over, who would provide a government photo ID with current address, a credit card number w/ the same billing address, the mac address for their computer, and the IP address for the same. The use of VPNs on the platform should be banned. Those posting content deemed illegal under the law, such as hate speech, pornographic or graphically violent images, or posting deliberate information deliberately intended to sway readers toward or against a religious or political orientation should be referred to local law enforcement cybercrimes divisions, and their accounts deleted permanently.
1
Does this phrase seem familiar?
"Department for the promotion of virtue and prevention of Vice"
2
The slipperiest of slopes. When was the last time you heard about "hate speech" against Christians or straight white men? These bogus hate-speech measures are simply a way of imposing a highly partisan orthodoxy. The Middle Ages called, they want their obscurantism back.
11
Violent speech is violent speech. Obscurantism? I do not think so. ----- The problem is, the reason of the hate speech has not been fixed. The percentage of well-educated people, highly educated people is getting lower. I am working-on plans now to correct that. Think of the World as one big School. I look forward to visiting Paris, for my first time. Hopefully, soon.
Does the problem rest with the law or with us? Has this technology changed us, enabling and amplifying bad behaviors more than good? Is it time for reflection and, perhaps, a pruning of our massive use?
5
I think the bad news is that it's us. I can no longer stand to read unfiltered comments responding to newspaper articles in US papers, for instance. But I'm glad we know what we're capable of so that we can begin to deal with it.
The best way to regulate facebook and other data slurpers is to simply not use them.
I regulate facebook on a daily basis by refusing to use it.
I have a lot of free time some of which I use writing comments to the NYT. Far more edifying.
9
Yes, this is a place I can get forceful and sometimes divisive thoughts and complaints off my chest without irritating my friends and co-workers. I find it less expensive and more rewarding than a therapist, and afterwords, I have written documentation that I was right all along.
1
If the Trump Regime were to establish a similar operation we'd know they'd turn what Germany is doing on it's head. So, in the end the 'marketplace of ideas' is probably the only approach.
1
Any regulation of online speech needs to start with denial of anonymity. Having people identified by their real names and contact info in all online interactions would stop much of the bullying and nastiness. Vigorous and consistent prosecution of instances of stalking and harassing behavior would further decrease the level of danger and improve the quality of interactions on line. People can think whatever they want, but their words and actions are best moderated by simple daylight. This goes for business and political action presence on line as well. Evolutionarily, social feedback helps individuals evaluate their true best course of action. Online interactions clearly need the same real social regulation. It is too easy for the human mind to wander into fantasy, apparently, without accurate feedback.
27
The same for off line too. But, so many off line crimes are not prosecuted, criminals are not caught. Anonymity probably does account for some of the "lack of control" on expression. But I say, the violent expression, the violent action is more due to a person's lack of education, as well as lack of quality law enforcement and lack of quality employers. -----In the Future, people are going to be monitored more closely, because of new products available to government. Also, World Law will be enforced more.
People are going to be screened, and weeded-out. There will be further, more in depth, population separations. Bullies, criminals, harassers, stalkers, hate groupers etcetera will be separated from the mainstream population, and much quicker, also. I am looking forward to this new technology, on the market. Hopefully soon.
2
I am not definitely sure, simply because I do not care enough to do information gathering, but, I think the Facebook idea was taken from a Harvard "social media" thing. So, originally, the "members" were Harvard Students... maybe the entire Ivy League Student population. But, no one outside of that group. Thus, Facebook worked under this original limitation. Facebook obviously does not work, under Zuckerberg's design.
Unless, Zuckerberg works for the police department, and the intent of Facebook is to catch people who commit the crimes described in the article. Then it works, perhaps. Another unless: Zuckerberg works for the human resources department for the Corporations. And, the intent of Facebook is to weed-out, screen, employees.
1
Facebook’s problems are two.
First its business model is based upon selling manipulative abilities, and how the customer uses these tools is out of Facebook’s control, even supposing they wanted to do anything about it. Undesirable manipulation is a necessary byproduct of Facebook’s business model.
Second, its business model is based upon algorithms to achieve what they call “scale”. That is, to enable computers to sift billions of bits in a short time at little expense. A business model that must automatically process tons of data rapidly cannot use these superficial methods to govern important things like sifting malicious content from irony, or sifting scurrilous tales from news.
In fact, Facebook should not be broadcasting at all. It should not be doing “news”. It shouldn’t be a vehicle for inciting riot, nor for government control. It should stick to helping real people with real personal interactions. Proselytizing is for organizations with their own dedicated web sites where participants are aware of what they are involved in.
Facebook should not be abetting twisting minds for profit or for ideology, but it’s present business model forces that result. Unless Facebook changes its business model in very drastic ways, it should be shut down as it is spreading a rot in society.
36
Yes. And include Google in that - their 'do no evil' days are long gone.
11
Facebook doesn't really "broadcast" news; that's part of the problem. In the desktop web-based version, there is a small box labeled "trending" that contains links to pages run by news organizations, but it's inconspicuous and not part of mobile apps, which is how most people see Facebook. Usually, when people see news, it's because a friend (or "friend") has linked to it, shared it, or even written it. Some of the posts that have been blamed for riots have been posts by individuals describing things that happened to them--or allegedly happened to them.
I've seen suggestions that Facebook should limit individual posts to keep out news and politics. It's a bit hard to imagine what that would look like, but I guess with constant censorship, it could be done. However, the suggestion is effectively one that Facebook should not exist. That's a defensible position, but it shouldn't be disguised as a suggestion that one could have a Facebook that doesn't have news or politics.
For completeness's sake, I note that many people follow news organizations on Facebook, so they've chosen to see some news that way. Following the pages of new organizations is an alternative to visiting those organizations' web pages and isn't much like Facebook broadcasting those pages.
Mike: The major problems pointed out are (1) Facebook’s sale of manipulative capability with no accountability and (2) Facebook’s reliance upon computer processing of reams of data in microseconds to make impossible “human” judgements of content, its objectives, and its possible impact.
The solution is to avoid the sale of manipulative assistance and to avoid having to decide whether content is “acceptable” by avoiding content from organizations instead of people, avoiding fake accounts, and avoiding ads, propaganda mills, and PR agencies. Probably requires a subscription based business model instead of the so-called “free” business model that is paid for by commercial and ideological interests.
1
Germany and other western european nations may as well ask a communist version of FB to replace Facebook. That is what it is coming to. A society that cannot protect free speech does deserve it. What we are seeing is state institutions using first a private data gatherer, in this case, FB, Instagram, Twitter, Google and the like to conduct business, whereby they are allowed to gather personal data of its citizens and then come suddenly to reveal those data to the authorities compromising individual rights. So in theory a govt. sector can promote a social media website with a nice intro initially, getting people to reveal their personal info and then one fine day, capture those data for punish people like it is happening in communist countries.
6
The article discusses the GDPR law, but focuses exclusively on the efforts of Facebook to monitor their own content by a local German office that predates this legislation. Ultimately Facebook is a private company and has the right (per the agreement you accept when you join) to control whatever content they want. People at either extreme—from those who feel Facebook is “over-censoring” posts to those who feel their own privacy is violated or exploited by the company—can choose to not be a part of the Facebook community.
For example, newspapers can CHOOSE to publish or not publish whatever they want BECAUSE OF the freedom of the press, not despite it. I’m not happy about many things that have happened on Facebook but ultimately they are a corporation, not a government; their “founding father” Mark Zuckerberg was never elected by the people, nor did he pass any “bill of rights” guaranteeing free speech. Hence accusing them of “censorship” seems misguided.
It is only after May 25 when the GDPR takes effect and we see what GOVERNMENT agencies do will we be able to see if any rights are violated.
7
Is deleting posts that amount to hate speech or include cruelties actually censorship? I think it is not - especially not if the content violates laws and the people who are posting it should actually be prosecuted. But that is where the problem starts: the real identity of the person posting is not necessarily known to someone who is reading the post. And the laws in the country where the post originated from are not necessary the same as where it is actually read. There is not one single authority able to regulate the content for the entire world. Therefore we are just delegating the fundamental task of "filtering" hate speech etc. to the provider of the platform who actually does not have any - neither "moral" nor "financial"- interest in doing so. That is the perfect setup for failure - not only for the censorship but especially for our democracy. The Trump campaign and Cambridge Analytica exploited exactly this weakness - and we still didn't learn from it.
10
If you hated less than a hundred million people's data being used by the GOP, you must have gone insane over Google setting up house in the Obama West Wing giving the Democrats EVERYTHING they had from EVERY Google user.
Facebook and all the social media outfits didn't just help the Obama 2012 campaign but volunteered eagerly. The news media are 90% devoted to the Democrats already, but no social media source is known to have even paused before jumping in to help the Dems with both feet.
Where do GOP candidates go to get this in-kind contribution game balanced out?
You really want to censor "cruelties"? As decided by whom?
There are plenty of left-wing commentators that I consider viciously "cruel" against people they disagree with. So......
Disturbing to see so many folks here eager to toss away the right to think or say whatever they want and believe that government law enforcement intervention is the answer. Naturally, they failed to think this all the way through and obviously don't realize that the would-be policemen of the internet will be working for whatever political party happens to be in power. Would you really want, say, the Trump administration using law enforcement to police what you say and think? Didn't think so. Now you know why the first amendment has been around for centuries and was designed to resist being tampered with by people who disagree with someone else's world view. Thank God the founding fathers understood that.
30
if a government of the people does not regulate then business will do as they will: seeking profit at the expense of the common good. We cannot allow corporations and leaders- who only want what is in their self-interest - to corrupt our notion of what is right and wrong.
8
What our founding fathers instituted for us is irrelevant to what Germany chooses for itself.
1
The Trump administration should also censor Facebook.
How’d you like that idea?
10
Actually the law is unconstitutional in regards to the German constitution - only a proper court can decide what goes beyond the right of free speech.
Claiming Facebook is a private company is irrelevant as due to it's weight it has long become "public domain" - by deliberately deleting your posts they rob you of your right to speak up. And deny a regular, lawful trial.
It's nice they are taking their responsibility serious and consulting lawyers. Unfortunately, as usual in almost all issues, Facebook will probably never answer any complaints when your posting has been taken down. So no right to appeal.
"Hate speech", a nonsense-term anyway, is just what it starts with. Soon you'll not be allowed to post anything that might shake social harmony by upsetting someone's feelings. Like critizing the government.
No wonder where this nonsense originates from.
On the other hand it's true that vitriolic texts inspiring hatred can't be tolerated just like that. But still, you need a proper trial, so this is unachievable. Which means that social networks as an open platform are generally impossible to operate after they reach a certain relevance in society. This law and Facebook's solution are just helpless attempts to avoid facing the truth:
It's irresponsible to leave social networks uncensored and at the same time unacceptable to have them censored. They are doomed. Good riddance I'd say!
12
We have to find a general morality in censorship. We have to accept that free speech comes with the responsibility and ability of honesty and decency. We need an authority to decide this. Everybody knows that this is a thin line from protecting people against hate and lies in a wide grey area of free speech. But the stakes are high, permanent hate-mongering can harm people and societies.
But for me the problem goes deeper, we have become a society of apartheid, we do believe what we want to believe and reject violently any dissent. We must get to the people in real life, find those who are completely entangled in a world of self-deception. And find ways to break up their enclosure. Fighting hate-mongering is also fighting a society of social isolation and tribalism.
And you americans should know how hard this is, i have never seen a democratic elected parliament so hostile at members of the other parties. If the lawmakers already endorse defamation, you simply can not restore decency by the censorship in the social media.
Go for the arsonists in real life, find a way to fight the goebbels and himmlers in person, not their speeches.
3
"And you americans should know how hard this is, i have never seen a democratic elected parliament so hostile at members of the other parties."
If you expand your historical perspective, you will find far worse examples. During the Weimar Republic in Germany, political parties were literally fighting each other in the streets. See, for example, the "Spartacist uprising" and the "Bavarian Soviet Republic".
BTW, calling the American Congress a "parliament" is technically incorrect and possibly offensive to Americans. Under the US Constitution, Congress is given "legislative Powers", so it would be correct to call Congress a "legislative body".
US Constitution
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
The US has 200 years of jurisprudence on the subject. Nowhere do they mention "hate speech".
Well said Mathias.
Some suggestions. You can not 'break up the enclosure'. Charles Darwin observed, 'The mind is like a citadel that can not be taken by force.' To use another metaphor. A closed fist will not unfurl in the presence of another closed fist.
And those who benefit most from having closed fists will find it hardest.
What can we do?
Practice the art of remaining open. Acknowledge our own tendencies to clench our fists.
This is not easy. For Baruch Spinoza it was a lifelong challenge, 'I have taken great care not to ridicule other people’s behaviour nor to weep at them, nor to hate them, but to understand them.'
But we know more about what makes us 'us' now. We are all flawed. We can not help but be flawed. As Theodore Zeldin noted ‘No amount of wealth or power can overcome your inadequacy of being human.’ This makes it easier to laugh at ourselves.
I find people can change their minds provided ‘THEY’ believe the change is positive - not because ‘I’ believe the change is positive.
For people who want to be change agents Leonard Cohen has a suggestion. We have to give up our perfect offerings and acknowledge, 'There is a crack in everything'.
And the the crack is always in an unexpected place.
You are a good soul Mathias,
Journey with courage and kindness
Peter Rennie leadershipaustralia
As Facebook deletes or takes down offensive posts, it should do it with a rejoinder such as the following: "Those who hate others also hate themselves."
It's possible that a statement such as this might influence at least some of these hate mongers to self-reflect and be tolerant of others.
2
'As Facebook deletes or takes down offensive posts, it should do it with a rejoinder such as the following: "Those who hate others also hate themselves."'
"Offensive posts" need not express "hate", so you are oversimplifying.
The serious press has tradtionally followed a code of ethics, self-policing, following journalistic standards. An equivalent has to be developed for digital media, for we cannot allow falsehoods and hatred to be propagated as facts.
11
Germany better get on top of it. Their history is unforgivable. They better see how Cambridge Analytica is involved. The world is in a decline and there’s little hope.
3
Will social media turn off President Trump's hate speech recently calling some immigrant "animals"?
3
My answer is YES. Hate speech like that should be censored. Furthermore people who persist in such speech should have their accounts deleted.
6
'Will social media turn off President Trump's hate speech recently calling some immigrant "animals"?'
Censoring the President is a very bad idea.
And Trump was referring to MS-13 gang members, as he explained in a tweet:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/997429518867591170
State-sanctioned censorship, this is less innocuous than the author seems to think.
4
"Hate speech" censorship is still censorship. In the case of the Muslim immigrant rape gangs that menace Germany, I am sure the women and girls (!) who are being raped do not appreciate the new, sensitive, moral Germany. As it is and always was, censorship, regardless of motive, is a tool of an oppressive state, in Germany's case one which wants to dampen down on criticism of Merkel's failed policies. Germany as usual is setting the gold standard for fascistic behavior.
9
You could not be more wrong. Basically you are playing with words and making no sense. There is a limit beyond which hateful speech plays no positive role in serving humanity and therefore should not be tolerated. Societies have a right to determine where that limit is. Germany is doing so in light of their past, which is entirely appropriate. Our country also has a shameful past, though not as drenched in evil as Nazi Germany.
12
Hate speech laws in our peer nations (the U.K., France, Germany) have been successfully used to convict atheists who criticize Christianity, leftists who criticize the police, Muslims wearing t-shirts that read “Long Live Palestine. Boycott Israel,” and an LGBT activist who called someone a homophobe, among many other instances.
What qualifies as “hate speech” is subject to the whims of the majority. If the U.S. further restricted the First Amendment, hate speech laws would be guaranteed to lead to the conviction of BLM activists. Some conservative jurisdictions have already added police alongside sex and race to existing hate crime legislation. Ardent critics of Evangelical Christianity would be prosecuted. Evangelicals are already casting themselves as victims using the same language as groups that are actually victimized. The strategy has been surprisingly effective. Women and gays who criticize Islam? Convicted.
American liberals who long for Anglo-European hate speech laws are arrogant and myopic. They’re so convinced of their righteousness that they can’t imagine the courts would ever side with the groups they perceive to be the oppressors. This is the problem with restrictions on free speech. In Russia, any positive portrayal of gay people is criminalized because it “corrupts the youth.” In Poland, anti-Christian rhetoric is pursued vigorously.
As a gay, half Middle Eastern man, I’m grateful to live in a country with such robust protection of speech.
10
You are dead wrong and the German experience proves it. Restrictions on hate speech are working quite well there and none of the red herring nonsensical examples you posit have happened.
7
Phil in alameda, the US is not Germany. And even as for Germany, as the far right continues to gain increasing power there and in the rest of Europe as they have in the last two years, don't be so sure that these so-called "hate speech" laws won't be utilized exactly as "Mr. Grieves" posits. "Hate speech" will easily expand or change definitions to mean whatever the party in power wants it to. The ACLU and the rest of the Left used to understand this but it seems Bill Maher on HBO is about the last liberal remaining in favor of the First Amendment.
3
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/al-franken-blasts-facebook-over-privacy-in-...
a thorough overview and insight of violation of privacy and of Facebook's intention. Glad Germany is taking the right path. Al Franken is sorely missed..hopefully he will decide to return to public service.
5
https://www.nytimes.com/1933/05/10/archives/nazis-pile-books-for-bonfire...
No good or bad anymore - just tit and tat...
Though it sometimes takes a while...
Torching books was metaphorical torching of people's thoughts...
What's going on now is the literal torching of thought...
In AI-speak, beyond weighting the inputs, and now pruning some inputs...
Hey, it's worked for computers - for tens of years...
PS
Suppose Eric Schneiderman moved to Germany and made such demands - could he then come back with a clean slate and run for NYS DA again...
1
While I have grown fed up with all the hate speech, I am VERY uncomfortable with the govt deciding what hate speech is.
4
How about every post on the sights are required to include the poster real name?
7
Hitler, especially at the Olympic Games, instructed the Nazi Party to cover up the persecution of the Jews. Hiding hate allows it to fester and grow insidiously. Let it out in the open for all to see and guard against.
4
German thought police.
How nice.
6
Students of the history of WWII know full well the history of hatred and racism of Europe. There is deep, extremely deep hatred of minorities, and ethnic groups across Europe and into Russia too. Muslims, Kurds, Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Chezcks, Serbs, Bosnians, Albanians, Austrians, and even Italians have minority populations or political extreme groups where hatred is fomenting daily. The peoples of Europe hate each other. Greek communists. still hate other Greeks. Cypress is unsettled. Every exciting and formerly existing state of Europe looks upon every other state with suspicion and hatred.
When hundreds of thousands of American troops occupied Europe the influence of those troops and their families who lived there helped to keep the radicalism in check. No longer. America has withdrew and the radical fringes are coming to the surface through facebook and other social media. Millions can see now easily see the propaganda and calls for violent extremism. And millions can post their own venom.
We are now 70 years away from WWII. The armies of democracy have withered away. What is left is the scourge of technology that allows its users to be mostly hidden but still very effective.
Freedom is very fragile. It requires strong institutions and democracy to keep it alive. It requires vigilant people to defend it. And it requires a presence. An American presence in Europe. Without our forces and families it is too easy to undermine democratic values and institutions.
5
This is certainly a good start to something that is way overdue.
Glad to see Facebook is not just relying on algorithms but real people to moderate. However, I'm interested in the average age of the moderators. Was that in the article? Age diversity among the moderators would be a good thing.
7
That age diversity is very important.....it may require some training for older folks not that familiar with tech - and some investigation of people applying and whether or not they are who they say they are and sane. FB certainly has the $ to do that investigating up-front.
It was intended to be social just for folks wanting to stay in touch, NOT as a political tool. But evidently it has turned partially into another Breidbart (disclaimer: I've never been a member of FB; not interested). In my age group (elderly) I have no interest in looking at pics of what my friends may have cooked during a monthly luncheon instead of them telling me face to face - and in the email groups I do belong to, it is easy to just make friends over time and discuss one-on-one whatever things are bothering or pleasing me or them, or for them to send me pics or vids of things they know I'd want to see via email).
Education is so important - why are we letting our kids get shot at schools? Or a range of age people shot at entertainment events? Seems our world has gone crazy (mostly because of Citizens United and the Electoral College). But our responsibility to see that all our children are educated sufficiently and safely if we want to hang on to our democracy.
The U.S. under Citizens United no longer represents all of us. Let's keep the good things about a functioning democracy but limit the ability of our crazies to go around shooting people and recruiting others to do the same.
That age diversity is very important.....it may require some training for older folks not that familiar with tech - and some investigation of people applying and whether or not they are who they say they are and sane. FB certainly has the $ to do that investigating up-front.
It was intended to be social just for folks wanting to stay in touch, NOT as a political tool. But evidently it has turned partially into another Breidbart (disclaimer: I've never been a member of FB; not interested). In my age group (elderly) I have no interest in looking at pics of what my friends may have cooked during a monthly luncheon instead of them telling me face to face - and in the email groups I belong to, it is easy to just make friends over time and discuss one-on-one whatever things are bothering or pleasing me or them, or for them to send me pics or vids of things they know I'd want to see via email).
Education is so important - why are we letting our kids get shot at schools? Or a range of age people shot at entertainment events? Seems our world has gone crazy (mostly because of Citizens United and the Electoral College). But our responsibility to see that all our children are educated sufficiently and safely if we want to hang on to our democracy.
The U.S. under Citizens United no longer represents all of us. Let's keep the good things about a functioning democracy but limit the ability of our crazies to go around shooting people and recruiting others to do the same.
So now we're going to have Germans be the moderators and decide what get's published!
Your papers pleazze!
10
Bill: "Your papers please" is already in use in this country by ICE etc., even boarding buses and demanding "papers".
1
I would love to know how many countless hours of human productivity have been lost to Facebook and the like. We probably could have cured cancer, found the missing link and gone to Mars...twice.
41
Human productivity isn't measured in hours. The folks spending time on Facebook wouldn't be any more original or creative if Facebook didn't exist.
5
Has it occurred to anyone else that using humans for this sort of censorship might effect brain chemistry in ways which are impossible to predict?
3
I think, in general, hate speech is free speech against the vulnerable, while free speech is hate speech against the powerful.
But it's not always easy to tell who is the vulnerable and who is the powerful.
25
Oh yes you can tell.. HATE speech has NOTHING POWERFUL IN IT .. FREE speech has NOTHING HATEFUL In it!! Very simple ..
7
There's no reason for yelling lol
2
I’d like to know if illegal posts including child molestation, rape, etc. get referred to the police instead of just deleted.
12
Of course, but mostly these posts come from the middle east or areas, where you hardly can backlog the IP-Adress or have neither the technical nor executive means to access such a person.
1
In Europe the can regulate facebook? In America, they can't even regulate gun control, environmental pollution, banks Big Pharmacutical ... Hear is what floors me. A company here who for decades has had a mission to make people, especially children, (Disney), can't even take down an evil man like Wayne LaPiere of the NRA. Maybe Facebook and Disney could unite to prevent school shootings somehow? Germans should not have to view evil on Facebook...But no child anywhere should be afraid to be shot at school! And if our useless POTUS, Congress and Senate refuse to do anything to help...maybe someone else needs to step in!
15
The Ministry of Truth is finally here! No one need worry about stray, disconcerting ideas anymore. Soon, the scourge of Thoughtcrime will be banished and only Goodthink will be allowed in online content, carefully screened by government approved thought curators. Order will be restored here in the US, and all will be well as before! Yay!
14
This article doesn't begin to cover the range of the censorship that is occurring. No one wants to see true hate speech, rape videos, etc. But when they are censoring content about CBD oil it crosses a line.
4
It is one thing to promote hate speech and another to allow hatred a place to show itself. If anyone thinks that making hate speech illegal will eradicate its existence you are a fool. People who would be out in the open and identifiable will be driven underground. The bigots will be reinforced in their hatred against all whom are not in their tribe. At least in the open people will know who they are and what they preach.
Stopping dialogue and banning speech is something authoritarians do both on the left and right. Shutting hatred away will not stop its existence. Only through dialogue can a person become educated on others' viewpoints and perspectives. Only through discussion can a common understanding be achieved.
1
You need to spend some more time online in unmoderated forums. People insult each other, use disgusting if not profane language, and often engage in discourse which educates no one, just to get a sadistic thrill for themselves. I've read thousands of such posts; not once have I ever seen anyone change their opinion and very, very rarely modify their "understanding" in any way.
1
Phil: Totally agree with you! I've looked at the Comment section in many online publications (including the esteemed Washington Post) and too many are pretty awful - hateful, vulgar, name-calling, really juvenile and serve no basis for any discussion. The NYT is exceptional in the type of Comments generated.
"Free Speech" in the US, only applies in / to the public forum. FB is a private sector 'enterprise' and can regulate as they wish....just like the NYT moderating the comment section....this is a good thing.
8
Who decides on what is "hate" speech? Today it is one thing, and it is another tomorrow. Lets call the spade the spade - it is censoring.
5
You are using the pejorative "censorship" without actually making an argument. If you wrote instead, "removing statements which promote hate, could incite violence and lead to no increase in anyone's understanding" the conclusion drawn by a thoughtful reader might change 180 degrees!
4
I am glad that the rest of the world cares about democracy. Zuckenberg cares sonny about money. With the rest of us monitoring his product we can erase his silliness of doing good and enforce laws that protect people.
He lies effortlessly like the Trump administration and is responsible for this Russian trolling.
6
I worked in IT in Germany for eight years - the whole world needs to adopt German data protection standards. Don't blame Zuckerberg, blame American lawmakers for abdication of responsibility!
92
I'm sure the Germans of the late 30s and early 40s were just as fierce about their free speech, until that speech provoked the vicious. inhuman, and murderous behavior of the Nazis.
So spare me the talk about protecting the rights of those who would use their speech to comment the same villainous behavior, like that in Sri Lanka. Sick, violent people should be shut up and shut down.
41
Whatever happened to the presumed disinfectant power of sunshine and exposure, as opposed to having such things fester unseen?
This tells us much more about human failings than the failures or misuse of social media.
For the medium is not the message, nor do we become our tools. It's that our tools become us, and that -all too often- is not a very pleasing thing to behold…
12
Whatever happened to the presumed disinfectant power of sunshine and exposure, as opposed to having such things fester unseen?
This tells us much more about human failings than the failures or misuse of social media.
For the medium is not the massage, nor do we become our tools. It's that our tools become us, and that - all too often - is not a very pleasing thing to behold…
Sounds like Breitbart
2
They need this in the US to monitor racism, which has exploded since the inauguration of most racist president since Andrew Jackson, his hero.
Make America Honest Again
53
Germany also raids homes in the wee hours of the morning for the purpose of investigating wrongthink so be careful what you wish for.
4
Evidence? I'll bet you have none.
1
Facebook is a disgusting, pernicious tool of average joes who have nothing better to do, whether loafing at work or idling at home, than to react to other posts put up there & then putting their 2 cents' worth in. This idiotic thing is a cycle that is ripe for breeding tha many (but not surprising) anti-immigrant (read: anti-white), at least in the average Western European country, as well as Russia to even some also - white-minority Eastern European (former Warsaw Pact - Soviet-Controlled states) where living conditions were horrible just after the fall & discredit of the tyrannical, "communist" (really, not much more than a corporate fascist bureaucracy, as in the USSR, itself) and subsequently, the need for scapegoats there are even greater, which is why seeing so much hate & bile coming from people, especially young people who don't feel as if they've got much to lose.
13
No, FB is just a tool that - like any tool - can be used . . . or abused.
5
Big Brother is watching !
8
But the arc of the USA bends towards Germany’s past.
We don’t need censorship!
We need individual acts of sovereignty against racism, tyranny and hate.
Laws in america are selectively applied to achieve a “free speech” country that looks like Germany, 1939.
ICE
POLICE MURDERS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
ECONOMIC INJUSTICE
EDUCATION INJUSTICE
16
Great! They should do the same in the US and other countries. The Germans learned their lesson the hard way. What will it take for Americans to learn?
No, hate speech is not free speech!
91
What’s hate speech? What’s the objective measure? I feel hate in your post, off to jail with you!
3
The Facebook business provides profiles that advertisers require to qualify leads to sell goods and services, including political data tappering to attract voters to a particular client's cause.
The German apporach seems to be out-dated and labor intensive. My concern is that once 1,200 monitors are trained and provided with tools to ferret illicit data from social media, who is to guarantee that these same people will be not motivated to switch sides? After-all, will data monitoring and cleaning be an ongoing business or temporary based on the business and political powers that rule behind the scenes?
There seems to be an uncoordinated solution to removing illicit data that attracts advertisers to buy virtual advertising 'space' to solicit. An alternative model would require virtual scanning and rules-based univesally accepted (AI) methods to scrape illicit data from global media profilers.
The scrapped data would not be sufficient. There also needs to be a penalty system that purveyors of raw illicit data that generates profiles and advertising dollars, must pay. Only when distributors pay stiff prices for illicit data its platform distributes, will there be an incentive to clean-up illicit data stores.
Consider parcel deliveries: deliver more parcels and increase revenue/day by driving over the speed limit and incurring a (low) possible fine, or slow-down and deliver a load of parcels to meet business ROI metrics/day.
Levy penalties on illicit data distributions.
2
Free speech is the people's Right but it MUST be based on TRUTH
It should not be allowed to spew hate and false Propaganda.
23
Several times hateful,hurtful mysognistic and racist content has been reported to Facebook only to have their moderators reply that the language doesn't offend their standards. It makes one wonder whether they have standards and what kind of people are serving as moderators. These incidents along with inappropriate comments, trolls, unwanted content and ads, and a growing lack of trust in keeping my privacy safe has led me to defriend Facebook. Best day of my life.
45
And yet they pull a post with a photo of a woman breastfeeding or a woman in a breast cancer support group on the site showing her mastectomy scars.
It honestly makes no sense.
I've reported comments and posts where the person used slurs, even the "n word" and the moderator lets it stand.
I'm still on FB but that's b/c it's basically the only way to stay in touch with friends and there are a few people I chat with on the site. Otherwise at this point I just post cat pics and haven't looked at my general feed in months.
I'm still waiting (knowing not to bother holding my breath) for them to give us better and streamlines privacy controls and a tool to actually delete all old posts.
I got a message about some friend (unnamed) who used that app Cambridge Analytica put out so my entire account got scraped and all the data went into their hands. Honestly wondering if I can file suit in small claims court against them.
8
To remain free, society must have protections from propaganda, organized predators and instigators, even when the perpetrators have ascended to supreme power. Our previous FCC and national broadcast regulation protections have been disabled and those that remain are obsolete in the age of Facebook and social media.
The truth and the legitimacy of a free press are under assault by the heirs of Richard Nixon and Roger Ailes, as well as Trump’s mafia and Russian Trolls.
Social unrest due to polarization follows after the corruption of social discourse.
It is a matter of national security that external forces have increasingly assaulted Americans with propaganda for years.
Eh, Murdoch? Eh, Putin? Eh, Zuckerberg?
32
You might want to add Google to your list of corporations 'using' us and our data.
Do no evil no longer fits them.
2
I am happy to see positive responses to this article. Hate speech is abhorent but so is False deliberately misleading phony sites that make outrageous claims and often spoof legitimate sites to do so.
FB is a platform that unsavy Nwt users can navigate fairly easily but all too many of these folk have no idea how to verify if a claim a "friend" forwards is true. FB also annoyingly uses our friends claiming they "like" sites which can also be misleading.
Their attempt to target ads is also based on algorithms that are poorly defined probably based on responses to friends. precious few are anywhere close to my real interests. At least so far none have tried to sell me guns or ammo.
I do not see the demise of FB anytime soon as too many of us have too much stored on their cloud, but if someone comes up with a better platform....
18
At least Germany is trying. Here in the US, hate speech is a valuable commodity, something to generate money. The GOP and its poster boy, Trump, have a lot to answer for if this country ever gets its moral act together.
117
"The Medium is the message." The power of social media to propagate hate speech and false narratives has overtaken anything envisaged in current law. I applaud Merkel's Germany for standing firm on this. Free speech has to be fact-based, non-hating speech whether the hate is directed at women, minorities or LBGTQ folks. There is a reasonable path forward. Let's take it.
101
Huge multi national corporations in the computer age can increase their profits and power from hate speech and fake news that gets worse in already polarized political cultures. Then a vicious cycle starts and spirals.
They and their paid off politicians can set groups against each other for political advantage. We have seen this happen in America with resulting violence and human rights violations. In steps Trump and friends, and their fans climb out of the woodwork.
This needs sensible regulation by democratically elected governments -- govts that are elected without big money tipping the scales, and without party gerrymandering---that will operate per principles of human rights.
15
Yes!
Corporations (and now our branches of government) are 'not' people. Power needs to go back to all the people (and that means all of us eligible must vote) and those too crazy need to be made to hide, not represent us. Citzens United must go, and so must huge undisclosed payments for electing people to our government.
7
The world, and the US, would be a better place if every American (especially Republicans) would follow one simple rule: Before reaching an opinion on a topic, consider how other countries who are US allies handle said topic. Canada, like Germany, has laws forbidding hate speech. The US needs to learn from these countries. Our approach to "free speech" in the US needs an update that recognizes that hatred directed at individuals and groups is more of an attack on the freedoms of those people than it is a right to be defended. The Constitution was a good start, but it's not perfect, and in this realm of "free speech" it is flawed. Germany and Canada show us a better way (and not only when it comes to free speech.....).
108
Thanks, I’ll stick with the Golden Rule instead. The last thing this world needs is more smug people or countries. Since Trump got elected, Canadians’ comments have become insufferable enough as it is.
9
"The world, and the US, would be a better place if every American (especially Republicans) would follow one simple rule: Before reaching an opinion on a topic, consider how other countries who are US allies handle said topic."
Are you serious? Who cares whether "US allies" (whatever that means) approve or disapprove of what Americans can think or say? What kind of freedom is that?
7
I'll stick to the golden rule too, which you immediately forgot by your last sentence.
"“But we think it’s a bad idea for the German government to outsource the decision of what is lawful and what is not.”
Any newspaper faces the decision of what to publish or not. It's not the government which tells the NYT what to publish.
To me Facebook is a publisher like a newspaper, and the German government is correct in its stance.
105
The only thing to do, challenging as it is, is to convince Mark Zuckerberg that he is a publisher and running a news media empire, not a social media tool that provides people with connected isolation while milking any and all possibly sellable data from them.
9
FaceBook *is* a crowd-sourced publisher. Period. It's media. And anyone can be a writer, reporter, reader, consumer.
But everyone is being *had* by Facebook and TV media. The actual product is eyeballs sold to the highest bidders in the corporate advertising world. Our data, our habits, our clicks, are being bundled as data and sold to whomever will pay the FB price for that data.
Zuckerberg and FB have a long, long history of data breaches, privacy breaches and apologies, but they are a monopoly (see Lindsay Graham's question to Zuckerberg in the most recent Senate query) which cares not a whit for anyone, they care for their bottom line. This puts them squarely in the center of the US global corporate ethos and that's pretty much fine with the 1% global elite.
So, nothing will change in the US, because Congress is completely in the pocket of that elite.
Go Germany, go European Union. They will succeed in reining in FB before the US Congress will.
1
The article claims that "In the country of the Holocaust, the commitment against hate speech is as fierce as the commitment to free speech."
Not true. Free speech clearly takes a back seat to what the government decides is hate speech.
"It all boils down to one question, said Mr. Billen, who helped draw up the new legislation: 'Who is sovereign? Parliament or Facebook?'" Not in this country. Here the people, not the government, are sovereign. That's the difference between a country with a heritage of being ruled by kings and dictators, and a country founded on rebellion against the same.
33
Parliament or the Bundestag, IS the people’s government, and the country’s defense against re-annexation by Putin’s and his oligarchs.
The US Congress is no longer beholden solely to the people, but to oligarchs and lobbyists, having legalized their own trade in bribery with the support of SCOTUS’ Citizens United decision. Republicans hence no longer want to acknowledge the U.S. as a democracy, but as a republic.
Repeating lies until they are true is the hallmark of this administration and party in power.
When also convenient, arguments based on historical truth such as you propose keep the deception going on the way to dictatorship.
54
"Free speech" has never had a platform like Facebook and to deny that that manipulation that is at the heart of the business model cannot be used to inflame opinion in democratic societies is disingenuous at best and nieve to the harm it is causing. It is an uncontrolled experiment and the company seems to care little about anything other than how to more effectively manipulate.
Moderation never mind veracity is a requirement for orderly human discourse. Publishers provide this. FB has not.
11
The US has always been a republic. Read some history. The Founders called the US a republic.
"The commitment against hate speech is as fierce as the commitment to free speech." That statement sounds like Doublespeak straight out of Orwell's '1984.'
42
Under the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment, we know that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech.
We can also recognize that spewing hate for any segment of humanity is also not permitted and for similar reasons.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Congress to act, however.